|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
InterNICHE Co-ordinator
Nick Jukes 19 Brookhouse Ave. Leicester LE2 0JE England Tel/Fax +44 116 2109652 coordinator@interniche.org |  |
Andrew KnightMurdoch University, Perth, Australia - Veterinary Medical Science, 1997 - present In 1998 Western Australia's Murdoch University became, to my knowledge, the first Australian university to formally allow conscientious objection by students to animal experimentation or other areas of their coursework. The University also reviewed the humane alternatives available in all 45 teaching units using animals within its veterinary, biomedical and biological science courses, and concluded in 1999, that, "… Murdoch was in a position to and should aim to conduct teaching that does not require animals to be killed specifically for this purpose by 2005." In 2000 I and a classmate became Western Australia's first vet students to be allowed to learn surgery without killing animals. In every case a substantial struggle was required to win these victories. In the following I describe some of the main events in the hope that my story may be of help to others.  First blood in first year The university drew first blood with a first year Cell Biology laboratory class in which rats were killed and their still-living intestinal segments removed and experimented on by students. The academics in charge were hostile and denied me the alternative assessment I requested, with the result that my boycott of the lab cost me a grade. I was, however, the first in many years to boycott anything and the controversy this stirred up, combined with economic pressures, eventually resulted in the entire lab being cancelled in 1998, which saved the lives of around 30-50 rats each year. At one stage I endured a fairly unpleasant meeting with two of the academics in charge. They left me with dire warnings that the cell biology lab was only the tip of the iceberg compared to what I would later have to face and suggested that I re-evaluate my suitability for the vet course. Their warnings did not have the desired effect but instead motivated me to research the humane alternatives in greater depth. Making preparations I sent out urgent appeals for help to animal rights groups around the world and discovered that I was not alone. Several provided invaluable moral support, information and resources. Thus I learnt that the number of humane alternatives available worldwide has grown exponentially in the last decade, with a similar rise in the number of courses in which they are offered. By April 2000, 20 of the 31 North American vet schools were offering alternatives to invasive experiments or other procedures, with 18 offering alternatives to terminal surgeries. By 1997 just over half of the 126 US medical schools had completely eliminated animal usage and all bar one of the remainder were offering alternative programs. The sole exception was a military college. For years all six of the UK vet schools have had, by Australian standards, an alternative system. Instead of practising surgical exercises on donated greyhounds and other animals that are later killed, students learn by assisting with necessary surgery on real patients that actually benefit from the surgery, in the same way that human doctors learn. Some of these changes have occurred after students have taken legal action as a last resort. The alternatives used in such courses include computer simulations, videos, plasticised specimens, ethically-sourced cadavers, models, self-experimentation and clinical experiences. Veterinary students in the UK and elsewhere learn surgery by assisting with necessary surgery under close supervision on real patients that actually benefit from the surgery. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the hugely popular animal shelter sterilisation programs. In these programs homeless animals are sterilised by students under close supervision and returned to the shelters. Adoption rates are consistently increased by these programs and the students gain invaluable experience at some of the most common procedures they will later perform in practice. Finally, I learnt of the numerous scientific studies affirming the competence of alternative students compared with those trained by harming animals. By August 1999 the Humane Society (US) website http://www.hsus.org/programs/research/compare.html listed 28 studies affirming the superior or equivalent efficacy of alternative methods in imparting knowledge or surgical skills. It was, by now, undeniably clear to me that there was no need to kill to learn how to heal. Second year: Welcome to Hell The second year labs made those in first year look tame. Students and demonstrators killed sheep, guinea pigs, rats, toads, and other animals, in order to demonstrate scientific principles that have been established for decades. The worst were in physiology, where groups of students anaesthetised sheep and experimented on them. Students cannulated arteries and veins (inserted tubes) and injected various drugs to demonstrate the effects on blood pressure. Arteries were occluded entirely. Students severed nerves to demonstrate the effects on heart rate, and forced their victims to breathe various gases to demonstrate the effects on respiration. One procedure involved occluding the air supply entirely. At the end of all experiments the surviving sheep were killed by students via drug overdoses before regaining consciousness. Students were instructed to open up the chest cavities to ensure the sheep would not come back to life. Incredibly, one of the stated objectives was that students would develop a sense of responsibility for an animal under their care, and the academics maintained that the labs were not desensitising. The farcical nature of these claims was demonstrated by the student who was thrilled to discover, upon placing her hand inside a sheep's chest cavity, that she could actually feel the animal's heart stop as it died. Fighting and winning The refusal of myself and fellow conscientious objector Michael Taylor to participate in several of these physiology labs cost us marks. The physiology academic and the Dean refused to grant alternative assessments despite being offered details of alternatives, of courses around the world where they're successfully used, and of the many scientific studies that demonstrate that alternative students are at least as competent as those trained by harming animals. As a last resort I took action through the state Equal Opportunity Commission. I formally complained that I had been discriminated against in my education on the grounds of my beliefs, which is, in some circumstances, illegal under state anti-discrimination legislation. Negotiations commenced and the university wisely decided to give my marks back fairly early in the process, thus denying me a more significant legal precedent and avoiding further adverse publicity. Murdoch allows conscientious objection The biggest victories, however, came in 1998, when Murdoch's Academic Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of two reports that had resulted from initiatives put to the Council by our student representatives. The Council resolved that: "The University recognizes that some students may have a conscientious belief which is in conflict with teaching and/or assessment practices in one or more units in which they enroll. The University shall endeavour to make reasonable accommodations to meet such beliefs." The second report was on animal usage in teaching throughout the university. The Council adopted its recommendation by launching a major review of the humane alternatives available in all 45 teaching units in which animals were used. The result of this review of animal usage was a 1999 Report on the Review of the Use of Animals in Teaching, which, as stated previously, urged Murdoch to eliminate the killing of animals for teaching purposes by 2005. The high standard and very progressive nature of this report make it a worthy model for other Australian universities. Alternative veterinary surgical program at Murdoch In 2000 I and Michael Taylor became Western Australia's first vet students to be granted alternatives to all of the fourth year terminal surgical laboratory classes. Additionally, I conscientiously objected to participating in one recovery surgical laboratory class - a sheep abdominal (rumenotomy) surgery. In place of the recovery sheep rumenotomy surgery I was eventually offered the option of performing a non-recovery rumenotomy on a Murdoch sheep being euthanised due to neoplasia, which I accepted. In place of the terminal surgical laboratories we were eventually offered, and accepted, alternatives involving: external experience in private veterinary clinics and animal shelters, supervised sterilisations at Murdoch on real patients, e.g., from shelters, and required attendance as observers at all of the terminal surgical laboratories. Despite the latter requirement the program was an outstanding success overall. Jointly we did not participate as surgeon or assistant surgeon in a total of at most 13 scheduled surgeries at Murdoch. However we performed or assisted with a total of at least 62 additional surgeries instead, not including the abdominal surgeries I performed on a "DASIE" surgical simulator I purchased from Canada. These surgeries were performed under supervision, mostly in private practice. Our experiences had both depth and breadth - depth in the case of the large number of spays and castrations we performed, and breadth in that we also participated in a range of other surgeries as well. In total during 2000 I sterilised 23 dogs and cats, and Michael sterilised 22 dogs and cats. The most important surgery for new graduates to be able to perform is the spay (female sterilisation). Most veterinary students - at least at Murdoch - do only one or two before graduation, generally in final year (fifth year). Jointly we did 21 spays before even beginning fifth year. It felt exceedingly good to be contributing positively towards the dog and cat overpopulation problem by sterilising animals, and thereby preventing unnecessary deaths, instead of causing them during our surgical training. My very serious concerns that alternative students be given the opportunity to practice their surgeries on cadavers before performing them on real patients, led in July 2000 to the delivery of my submission Ethically-Sourced Cadaver Surgery - A Submission to Murdoch University's Division of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences (Knight, 26/7/00), to the vet school. This 100 page submission described in detail client donation programs successfully operating in US veterinary schools, and provided ample information to aid in the establishment of a similar program at Murdoch. It formally requested that the Division take steps to organise an ethically-sourced cadaver surgical program as part of its alternative surgical program as a matter of urgency. Despite my requests nothing discernible was done and no cadavers provided until I again exerted significant pressure on the academics in charge. Finally, in the last two laboratories, ethically-sourced canine cadavers were provided to us, allowing us to perform seven simulated surgeries on them. In Jan. 2001 I wrote to the vet school asking what progress, if any, was being made towards formally introducing a client donation program at Murdoch, and towards formally incorporating ethically-sourced cadaver surgery as part of Murdoch's future alternative surgical program. As of the 1st Feb. 2001 I am awaiting the response. Spreading conscientious objection across Australia and New Zealand I am attempting to assist with the introduction of humane alternatives across Australia and New Zealand by encouraging students to conscientiously object to harmful animal usage in their courses. In 2000 I created humedanz@coollist.com, the Humane Education email list for Australia and New Zealand, in the hope that it will provide an important support network for conscientiously objecting Australian and New Zealand students in the future. I am working on a guide to conscientious objection for Australian students, with a section on their legal rights, which I hope to finish and distribute later in 2001. And through my Australian & New Zealand Tertiary Libraries Donation Project, I'm working to ensure that every Australian and New Zealand campus using animals in teaching has the world's best resources on alternatives and conscientious objection freely available in the campus library, so that students and others have the resources they need to run successful campaigns available at their fingertips. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Back to list of testimonies